Students, Disciples, and Sheep

I disagreed with the spelling book the other day as it wanted discipline as a synonym for punishment. Too often discipline is perceived as nothing more that that. As the vicar pointed out at our faculty Bible study, discipline is based on disciple, which means student; therefore, I think it not a stretch to reason that to have discipline is akin to studiousness
We had listed qualities we teachers most desired in students, and the first one listed was “listens”, closely followed by “follows directions”. Comparing those two most-desired qualities to disciples of Christ was an interesting exercise indeed.
Jesus says in John chapter 10 that the sheep hear the shepherd’s voice and follow him because they know their shepherd’s voice.
How often do students listen? How often do they follow directions? Being a teacher, I know that it’s less than one wants to admit. Too often a student’s listening gets drowned out by clutter—thoughts of what’s for lunch, thoughts of what am I doing here at school, daydreaming, noise and clamor coming from those around a student, whispering from a neighboring desk pulling attention away from the teacher—all of these can keep a student from listening. Following directions, then, is nearly impossible because one has not heard or attended to listening.
So it is in the life of the sheep. The disciple, the follower of Christ, hears the master’s voice, but does not always listen. We, like sheep, have gone astray. Too much clutter—what’s for lunch, what am I doing here in life, daydreaming, noise and clamor from all sides, the whispering pull of seductive idols of all sorts—keep us from listening to Christ. We do not follow the Law, therefore, because we have not heard or attended. The history of God’s people shows this over and over and over again. Adam and Eve were seduced by the sleek serpentine words; the Israelites were won over with a disheartening report of the size of the people of the land and their walls; Kings of Israel and Judah turned from truth to following Asherah and Baals; Pharisees made up their own laws to follow ritualistically instead of God’s Law.
For all this we cry, “Lord, have mercy!” We turn to Christ, our Shepherd, who became the sheep led to slaughter for us. He is the one who listened and followed the Law of His Father, so that his sheep might be spared and be His disciples—studious ones discipling others.

Signs, Signs

And you thought this was going to be about the tornado. . .

Nope, they've done it again. There is a new billboard campaign. From the news story:

"[Pastor] Benke said it's important people understand what's contained in
Christian scripture.
'And then, quite frankly, the church gets that message
wrong, as well,' he said. 'But the Bible teaches there is no sin that isn't
forgivable in Jesus.'
Benke hopes his church's thought-provoking billboards
mark the beginning, not the end, of a conversation about forgiveness."

The billboards offer a website, http://www.whatsforgivable.com/, and the billboard connects to a sermon series starting soon.

At least this time around, the message is scriptural. In Christ, all sins have been paid for.

Here comes the question: will Jefferson Hills get the message right? Will they talk about all having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God? Will they talk about how we are all beggars before God whose only prayer can be, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner"? Will they address confession and repentence? Will they address the unforgivable sin and adequately discuss it?

I suspect that as good as this sermon series sounds, the point will be lost in the midst of people pondering the billboards and wondering in human terms what is forgivable, and miss the point that we are not the king who forgives the large debt, but we are the slave who finds it difficult to forgive the small debt.

More from the File of Things That Make You Go "Hmm"

What does it say when a parent touring one's school (Lutheran school, mind you) if the school holds to its own teaching or has been sucked in to the ways of the world? This actually occured today. The parent wasn't being mean; this person really wanted to know. The parent then proceeded to offer this explanation for the question. This parent has been looking at Christian schools in which to enroll a child, and one school indicated that they did not celebrate Christmas. This school had been directed by its board to celebrate "winter holidays" aka "ChanuRamaKwanzsMas" so as not to offend the sensitivities of its non-Christian students. Excuse me? I can understand a public school (our motto: thou shalt not offend any but those who need offense--Christians, those of European heritage, and those who support a male-dominated culture) not celebrating Christmas, or at least that holiday of Santa Claus, brown paper packages tied up with string, and the Grinch; but a Christian school?! This seems rather ridiculous. The parent even asked the school what they do for Easter. What next? They won't celebrate Mother's Day so as not to offend those without mothers or those with a mother and a stepmother and a surrogate mother and the girlfriend of the mother because the poor teacher doesn't have time enough in the day for four Mother's Day handprints in clay, let alone one because the teacher has to cover hygiene and safe sex and self-esteem and integrating counting in the early English language (een, tween, treen) to help the children become "the most limited of all specialists, the 'well-rounded' [person]"?
Maybe I've crossed the line over into the absurd. Maybe I'm not the one who has crossed the line. I just can't get beyond this question: if you don't stand for what you believe in, why bother believing at all?

From the File of Things That Make You Go, "Hmm"

Perusing a blog I frequent frequently (Is that redundant?), some of the comments there made me wonder. Why is it that in a world, land, society, fill-in-the-blank where "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" and were nobody is supposed to step on the rights of others, those who assert their opinion contrary to popular opinion are squelched? I guess that's a convoluted way to ask.
What about Sarah Palin? Why is she branded whatever she is because of who she is? Why can anybody get away with it with her and not with, say Sotomayor? To pick on one woman is acceptable, to do the same to another is racist. Same goes for the president. Why is it forbidden to ask the hard questions and not be labeled as racist, narrow-minded, or just "totally out of touch with reality"? Policy is considered separately from the person. If Bush had the policies of Clinton, I would never had voted for him, truly. Have we really come so far that we have forgotten how to think and debate civilly? We resort to ad hominim attacks and that wins the debate in our book?
It especially falls hard on Christians, especially those who still hold to theology, doctrine, and vocation. Now we try to rule the world with religion. We are closed-minded to new ways of doing things. If I recall my history correctly, the Christians were opposed to slavery. The Christians helped make Europe a kinder, gentler society in the Middle Ages.
I hear it now: "But that history was written slanted," or "What about the Christians who owned slaves?" or "What about the Crusades, huh?" There is no quick rebuttal if one does not believe in sin. Christians aren't perfect ("Boy, haven't I heard that one before?"), but to say that all Christians are a certain way because of the Crusades is as prejudiced as saying all green people are the same because of the actions of the Wicked Witch of the West. (I'm sure there are green people out there who are truly decent people and do not cackle menacingly and threaten little dogs and girls wearing ruby slippers.)
This is the long way of saying this: I'm not all those labels one slaps on Christian conservatives. Sure, I'll think for myself and make up my own mind. I'll speak up when I need to, and I will work to show others their errors. Maybe that's what's forbidden--"have your own opinion, but I don't want to hear it because you'll just tell me I'm wrong." Or maybe it's okay to tell me I'm wrong to tell you you're wrong because that's just wrong. Welcome to post-modernism, I guess.

Everybody's Got an Opinion

It is, in a way, exciting for a new Lutheran museum to open up in the headquarters of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. I like museums of most kinds--even the SPAM museum. I'm one of those unusual people who enjoy learning about various parts of history, and yes, I do read most of the signs posted around as I look at the exhibits.



Anyway, you can read about the opening at the Post-Dispatch website, and see some pictures. Go soon--most newspaper websites will allow content to be seen only for a while before a person has to subscribe. Before you leave the news story and look at the pictures, however, take a gander at the comments left by readers. As of the writing of this post, there are twelve comments.



The comments start off commendably, thanking the LCMS for the work the Human Care arm does. From there, it degenerates. Only few of the twelve followed Thumper's advice: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." It seems to be an exposition of post-modern society. We cannot dialogue like civilized people; we have to insult and make blanket statements with nothing to back it up. We blurt out whatever we want without showing someone in love (or at least tact) how and why we disagree. If one wrote similar comments about a disenfranchised, minority, oppressed, or racial group, there'd be an uproar; maybe it's just okay to do it to the Lutherans. . . Maybe the SPAM museum is a cult museum too. . .[walking away humming, "SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM; SPAM, wonderful SPAM. . .]

Let's Go to a Show

We have season tickets to the Muny in Forest Park again this summer. It's a pretty good lineup this summer. As an aside, one Muny employee told me that because of the economy they wanted to have shows that were popular to be more of a draw.

Last week we got to see Godspell. I had never seen the show before, but was aware that it is based on one of the Gospels. It is based on the Gospel of Matthew, yet includes the story of the Prodigal Son, which is found only in Luke. I found the first paragraph in the program's write-up about the show very interesting:

John-Michael Teblak conceived of Godspell as a master's degree these at Carnegie Mellon University in 1970. His inspiration for the show came from a disheartening church experience on Easter Sunday of that year. Struck by the lack of joy in the service and the hostility of his fellow churchgoers, he sought to create a show that wold capture the love and happiness of the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

Wow, what does it say for a church when a person is so disappointed in Easter worship that he feels compelled to write a musical to make up for it? Especially one where Jesus and the 8 characters are supposed to be "clowns" and spend the show building a community.

The show was well-acted, and the cast sang very well. The production was well-done. The show was disjointed at best. If community building was the point, I missed that. It was more like a drawn-out VBS skit trying to teach Matthew-John at one sitting. The parables and stories were presented, but without context or theology to tie them together, one was left on his/her own to get out of it whatever one wanted. The Good Samaritan scene did have a bit of a moral to it, of course: "Be nice to people;" which, if you ask pretty much any Higher Things pastor, is not the main thrust of that parable. The Prodigal Son came closer to the main idea. The son who turns away is not the son we think. The "crucifixion" scene fell flat. Jesus was lashed to the sides of the gazebo, so at least there was a cruciform aspect, but the line, "O God, I'm bleeding," was a statement of the obvious, and the follow-up line, "O God, I'm dying," seemed to be there only to let the audience know that that what was supposed to be happening. The resurrection was glossed over--did he rise, or was he just back for the finale and curtain call--it was hard to tell.

All in all, I'm not surprised that there was no corporate sponsor for this show (although someone missed an opportunity there). I also don't plan to rush right out and see it again. At least this week's show is something nice, funny, and takes no theological translation: The Music Man. Harold Hill comes to the Muny. . .

The Art of Debate

I enjoy art fairs. I prefer art fairs which have more artistic artists as opposed to art fairs which fall more under the category of craft fairs. I enjoy looking at the the amazing ability and creativity of the painters, photographers, and others; and sometimes I see some pieces wonder "Why would anybody want to buy that?" I really like looking at the jewelry, but almost all of it is out of my price range. . .

I was recently at one of the biggest art fairs in the country, which is actually multiple fairs held simultaneously. We spent the better part of two days looking at the different booths, and saw some amazing artwork. At one booth I found some reasonably priced jewelry and was planning on making a purchase. The vendor had other ideas.

My husband was with me and wearing a shirt which read "Dare to be Lutheran". Apparently upon reading this, the vendor wished to engage in a religious debate. As I perused the gems and inquired of prices, the vendor began this conversation:

"Do you think I could dare to be Lutheran?"

"You could," my husband responded. Meanwhile, his parents had fled the conversation

"What if I dared to be Buddhist?"

"That might be a problem," my husband said, as I wondered what the vendor was driving at.

"What if I dared to be Baptist?"

"That might be okay."

"What if I dared to be Catholic?"

"That might be okay."

I attempted to deflect the conversation by asking about the merchandise. He brushed me off with some non-committal answers and then finally cut to the chase.

He informed us that he was Buddhist and that they were taught things without "all the dogma." He said that as a Buddhist one could believe whatever one wished. At this point it seemed that he was attempting to drag us into a conversation ridiculing us for believing in doctrine, theology, and closed-minded ideas. He then commented, "We teach critical thinking. You ever hear of that?"

At this point, I bit my tongue, put down the necklace at which I was looking and said, "I'll think about it, thank you," as we walked away.

Now, one might say that we did not "Dare to be Lutheran" or make a proper Christian witness. One might say we should have engaged in debate with this man. Maybe. Maybe not. In this case, it seemed he wished to cut us down to size. He was likely not interested in hearing what it meant to be Lutheran. The statements on my bitten tongue regarding critical thinking being a hallmark of Christianity would probably have fallen on closed ears.

If I were brilliantly witty, I may have been able to win him over with a convincing discourse; however, as I tell my students, there is a difference between arguing and debate. Debate is two opposing sides working to present their respective positions. Arguing is two opposing sides talking past each other. One is mental, one is emotional. Love and Logic talks about frontal lobe (the reasoning lobe) thinking vs. brain stem (fight or flight) thinking. It seems to me that to continue the conversation would have been two brain stems trying to reason together--not profitable. Speaking of not profitable, I hope the vendor did not engage all those who came to his booth in the same manner, else he would have lost more sales than just mine.